ChatterBank1 min ago
Should 'burner' Phones Be Banned?
This story relates to the U.S., but do you think this should apply to to the UK?
http:// www.ind ependen t.co.uk /life-s tyle/ga dgets-a nd-tech /news/b urner-p hones-c ould-be -made-i llegal- under-l aw-that -would- require -person al-deta ils-of- anyone- buying- a-a6955 396.htm l
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I thought 'burner' was just a figure of speech. You mean they actually incinerate them, spreading Cadmium all over the place?
Actually, the thing I really hate is the film/TV trope whereby the hoodlum throws their disposablt phone into the river, potentially poisoning all the fish downstream.
Im answer to your question: No, I don't think they should be banned but there should be more rigour in getting those personal details handed over at the counter. Change it so that the phone is posted or hand-delivered to the address provided (not a P.O. Box; checked against databased to ensure it is not a 'business' address; checked to ensure no more than 2 purchases per address in any 5-year window, pending further explanation). Any measure which would not be obstructive to 'normal' consumers but highly inconvenient to those with criminal intent.
Actually, the thing I really hate is the film/TV trope whereby the hoodlum throws their disposablt phone into the river, potentially poisoning all the fish downstream.
Im answer to your question: No, I don't think they should be banned but there should be more rigour in getting those personal details handed over at the counter. Change it so that the phone is posted or hand-delivered to the address provided (not a P.O. Box; checked against databased to ensure it is not a 'business' address; checked to ensure no more than 2 purchases per address in any 5-year window, pending further explanation). Any measure which would not be obstructive to 'normal' consumers but highly inconvenient to those with criminal intent.
Prior the mobiles, you needed a pile of bricks and mortar, just to have the privilege of being allowed to have a phone number. There was still crime, of course but technology was slow to catch up and provide wiretapping and call-tracing.
Anyway, it occurs to me that rationing the availability of new numbers and making users queue for a few weeks for new number issues (kept proportionate to population increase but no more than that) and transfers to new handsets could cramp the style of the use and chuck brigade.
Punishing the many, for the criminality of the few, is not a good solution but it is *a* solution.
Anyway, it occurs to me that rationing the availability of new numbers and making users queue for a few weeks for new number issues (kept proportionate to population increase but no more than that) and transfers to new handsets could cramp the style of the use and chuck brigade.
Punishing the many, for the criminality of the few, is not a good solution but it is *a* solution.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.